Alarm bells have been ringing around the neighborhood pretty much nonstop since July 13, when President Obama sat down to talk Middle East policy at the White House with a pack of leaders from a dozen American Jewish organizations.
The meeting was supposed to help buff up Obama’s relationship with the Jewish community, which is bubbling lately with resentment at the president’s aggressive peace-processing. By reaching out to the community’s customary spokesmen, he hoped to build rapport and perhaps recruit a few backers for his policies. Instead he unleashed a whirlwind of attacks against himself, his administration and the Jews who met with him.
The critics accuse Obama of unfairly singling out Israel by demanding a unilateral settlement freeze, without requiring reciprocal Palestinian concessions, and disregarding past American promises to permit some construction. They say he is trying to curry favor with the Arab world, breaking a long-standing presidential tradition of siding automatically with Israel. Some say he is threatening the important legacy of George W. Bush. I didn’t make that one up.
Martin Peretz, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic, wrote on his blog that he was “sick and tired” of Obama’s “hectoring” of Israel. He was particularly offended by the president’s condescending advice to Israel, “via some 15 American Jewish leaders,” to “engage in some serious self-reflection.” Heaven spare us.
Even the politically correct New York Times Op-Ed page carried a jab at Obama — its sole commentary on the July 13 meeting — by Aluf Benn of the dovish Israeli daily Haaretz, no less. Benn accused Obama of mistakenly talking to American Jews rather than the Israelis he should be wooing. After all, why would an American president care what American Jews think?
Sneering at American Jews appears, in fact, to be one of the unifying themes in the backlash. Numerous critics say Obama is using — or being used by — a pair of turncoat Jewish aides, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, whose goals are “to suppress the American Jewish community” and to change Israel’s agenda from stopping Iran “to ‘peace in our time’ in Palestine,” as Israeli journalist Amnon Lord wrote on the Web site Bitter Lemons.
Another frequent complaint is that the president or his buddies deliberately skewed the Jewish delegation by inviting Americans for Peace Now and J Street, “Israel-bashing groups” whose very “Raison d’être is to force Israel to make additional unilateral concessions,” or so former World Jewish Congress firebrand Isi Leibler wrote in The Jerusalem Post.
But the problem with American Jews may run deeper than a few strays, columnist Caroline Glick warned in The Jerusalem Post. Israelis are wondering, she wrote, whether American Jews have already “abandoned Israel in favor of President Obama.” A Jerusalem Post survey in June found that only 6% of Israelis “view Obama as pro-Israel,” while a May Gallup tracking poll found that 79% of American Jews “support the president.”
Actually, given those numbers, Obama’s critics might want to take a second look at suppressing the American Jewish community.
Indeed, more than a few commentators have flatly accused Jewish organizational leaders — or American Jews at large — of betraying Israel and toadying to Obama the way they toadied to Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Holocaust. That’s right, folks: Nazi collaborators in the Roosevelt Room. What better place for a president to court Jews?
These are troubling charges. That is, they would be, if there were anything serious behind them. But there isn’t much there. Mostly they are just one-liners deployed to buy time for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while he figures out how to placate Obama without breaking up his government coalition. At best the charges fall apart upon scrutiny. The rest should be handled with rubber gloves.
The most repellent of these is the sliming of Axelrod and Emanuel. It’s not a new tactic; it was used by former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir against Jewish officials under the first President Bush, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer, to the point where Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew, couldn’t go to synagogue without being harassed. The same sort of dreck was thrown at Jewish aides to the second President Bush, including Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz. It was vile then, and it’s vile now.
The truth is that every president hires whom he wants, meets with whom he chooses and, if he’s responsible, seeks a balanced foreign policy. Israelis and their friends got spoiled by the last president’s reckless unilateralism and contempt for world opinion. Obama is trying to walk it back, and so he must.
If there is a substantive argument in all this, it’s the claim that Israel is being pressured for concessions while the Arab side is not. Obama himself conceded the point at that meeting. He’s now pressing Arab states for gestures to help Israelis get the medicine down. But freezing settlements doesn’t depend on that. Jerusalem is already committed to “freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” It’s written in black and white in President Bush’s road map, which Israel signed in 2003 — and which Avigdor Lieberman reaffirmed this past April 1 in his maiden Knesset speech as foreign minister. Israel was able to put off the freeze because the Palestinian Authority wasn’t honoring its commitment to crack down on terrorists. Now the Palestinians are cracking down, and Netanyahu is making up excuses.
As for Obama being the new Roosevelt, we should live so long. FDR, if memory serves, was the guy who defeated Hitler and saved the world, after the Japanese air force convinced congressional Republicans to let us join the war. If Obama has any tricks like that up his sleeve, bring ’em on.
Contact J.J. Goldberg at goldberg@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Nice piece JJ. The Ragers should be here soon!
Palestine is moving forward faster an with far less resistance than Israel, and if Israel doesn't catch up soon, they may be left out of the loop. International recognition of Palestine, including borders, does not require Israel's approval. Israel already has recognized borders and the precedent has been set.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is unsolvable right now. And it's not so important that it be solved right now, either.
The only logical reasons I see for the obsession with solving it is to keep talking heads and special envoys employed, while jacking up flame wars on struggling media websites that need to keep up the traffic.
I can't wait for the next book speculating "what went wrong" after this latest attempt to grab the nobel prize fails.
This article is insane, as 79% of American so called Jews.
"Tisha B'Av will last forever," promised Kamal al-Khatib, deputy head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, to thousands of cheering Muslims at the Temple Mount a few days ago. Even the hearts of Jews far from the mountain saddened. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas mocked us in the same spirit a few months ago when he said, "Call yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic - it is none of my business." He refused to accept Israel's Jewish identity. We, who have drifted away from Tisha B'Av and the Temple Mount, should be grateful to both of them, because sometimes a nation needs its haters to discover its real face in the mirror again.
Why deny it? Only a few of us still feel real pain over the destruction of the Temple some 2,000 years ago. Fewer still are attached to the Temple of yore. Tisha B'Av is filled with events organized by Temple Mount movements and groups interested in negotiations and public discourse, but the general public is not part of all that.
It is doubtful whether legislation would help in this case. It may even be harmful when the public does not feel mere indifference to this day but alienation. Regrettably, many people ignore Tisha B'Av. They wonder what mourning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple has to do with them, who are living in a sovereign Jewish state. Advertisement
But there's another way that will put not only the loss of the Temple and its existence at the center of this day, but mainly the loss of Jewish sovereignty and freedom and the beginning of the long exile. Were it not for that exile, in which we were banished from our land, persecuted, oppressed and murdered, our history as a nation could have been very different.
Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson once said that "had Israel not mourned its destruction for generations ... we wouldn't have had Hess, Pinsker, Herzl or Nordau ... Yehuda Halevy wouldn't have been able to create 'Zion, Won't You Ask' and Bialik couldn't have written 'Scroll of Fire.'" Chaim Arlosoroff, one of the most outstanding Labor Zionist leaders, defined Tisha B'Av at the beginning of the last century as "the nation's greatest mourning day."
The Kotzker Rabbi of Poland once repented in tears, telling his followers that as a boy of 10 he had been overpowered by arrogance. After his family's house burned down and its property was lost, he comforted his weeping mother, promising that when he grew up he would write a new family tree beginning with himself, instead of the one the fire had consumed. Too many people see the Temple Mount much like little Menachem Mendel (later to become the Kotzker Rabbi) saw his family tree, believing they can skip the Temple Mount and rewrite the Jewish nation's lineage without it.
Beside the Book of Lamentations and the traditional laments it is time to call, 'Arise! Let us go up to Zion," let us go to the Temple Mount. Within the limitations of halakha and of police directives, not as a provocation or demonstration.
A heritage trip to Morocco or Poland is all well and good, but going to the Temple Mount is the real heritage trip. A trip of consciousness and study, with maps and history books in the company of archaeologists, historians, rabbis, academics, educators and commanders. A trip intended to remind us where the Jewish people's genealogical record is buried in Jerusalem. And no posters, demonstrations or ritual effects. This minimum, visiting the Temple Mount, is reserved by Israel's laws to any Jew who wants it, even if he wears a skullcap. The police, despite their balking, must allow it.
Several years ago I went on a fascinating trip of this kind with archaeologist Dan Bahat, and I have returned many times since. Even today, Tisha B'Av, after some 30 years of writing for Haaretz, I will go there. Like many others I will look back knowing that the memory of the past and heritage is in many ways also the history of our present and future, and that only thus will we improve the chance that others, including our enemies, will recognize this continuity and affinity.
Maybe Jews in the United States are beginning to realize that Israel needs to become more realistic and inviting to others, the land is too often disrespected by trash, politicians are crooked, people are judgemental and often unkind to each other, you cannot enter into a business there without being creamed, and that the US and its servicemen and women should be respected equally if not in front of. I hope that is the case. Anyone who wants to simply think that the approval of obama has everything to do with less israel identity is missing an opporutnity to learn and correct what needs correcting in israel. Americans, jewish and non jewish do not have the luxury in todays world to blindly believe in israel being correct at all costs
When was the last time the Forward deleted an Israel-hating or Anti-Semitic comment from a reader? Why is it that the only comments which are deleted disagree with the author's opinions and agenda? Well, since the Forward fears any dissenting, "vigorous debate and reasoned critique", I will attempt to excise the strong dissenting arguments, and pare it down, to see if the Forward can deal with just the inconvenient FACTS:
The Forward at first played up Obama's meeting, in which he sought to suppress American Jewish criticism of his attacks on Israel, and divide and conquer by creating a wedge between American Jews and the Jewish State of Israel. The Forward touted the meeting as a "new paradigm defining the relations among the Obama administration, the Jewish community and Israel." It claimed that the "bulk of the organized Jewish community" were slavishly impressed by Obama, and would not give him any "push-back" on his public attacks on Israel, and that they actually supported those attacks.
(See: http://forward.com/articles/109597/#post-comment )
Well, now that - contrary to the Forward's "narrative" - American Jews are waking up to the alarm bells, finding their voice, and beginning to organize to confront the threat - the Forward attacks them. It rushes to side with the architects of the most anti-Israel policies by an American administration in history. With Iran threatening a second Holocaust it ridicules the danger.
Does anyone recognize an agenda?
N. Korea fires missiles in the direction of Israel and sets of a nuclear bomb. Obama does nothing. Iran snubs its nose at Obama's overtures and continues developing a nuclear bomb. Obama does nothing. In fact, Obama seems to be goimg out of his way to not meddle in another country's internal affairs. So, why is Israel the exception. That would seem to be a good indication of a bias toward Israel. As for peace between the Israelis and the Arabs, there is only one way to come to peace and it has nothing to do with the settlements. That is for the Arabs to recognize Israel's right to exist. If they can't do that, why negotiate?
This editorial should have been entitled, "Outrage with Good Reason":
Obama has embarked on the most anti-Israel policy of any American president in history, engaging in a strategy of outlandish attacks, and attempts to intimidate and "divide and conquer" by trying to drive a wedge between American Jews and the Jewish State of Israel.
In starting to "push back" against these outrageous attacks on Israel, courageous Jewish leaders are also identifying the enemies of the Jewish people, calling a spade a spade. This editorial seeks to demean this growing group of decent people, who represent the values and interests of the vast majority of American Jews, by deriding them as, "a few strays". It deprecates those bravely standing up for American Jews by the disingenuous claiming that they are "sneering at American Jews". The opposite is true. They are calling out those who would betray American Jews, like J Street and the "Jewish" Forward, and (as quoted in this editorial), "a pair of turncoat Jewish aides, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, whose goals are “to suppress the American Jewish community” and to change Israel’s agenda from stopping Iran “to ‘peace in our time’ in Palestine."
Obama's strategists plan to use the most extremist fringe anti-Israel "Jewish" groups to his advantage. By attacking Israel on "settlements" (going so far as to call Jerusalem a "settlement"), and seeking to intimidate those they considered weaker Jewish leaders, they thought they had a wedge issue that would create a rift between Israel and American Jewry, and lead to the "break up" of Netanyahu's coalition government. They miscalculated, and Israelis and American Jews have pulled together.
(See: http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/amnon-lord-obama-miscalculated )
Jews who speak up for American Jews and Israel should be applauded and supported. We have already seen a number of the organizations who attended the Obama "meeting" do so. It is time for the "Jewish" Senators and Congressmen and local political representatives, community leaders, educators, young Jews, mainstream Jewish congregations, (real) rabbis, and writers to stand up and be counted.
The threats against Israel posed by an unfriendly U.S. administration are initially diplomatic, and ultimately involve military defense. Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, the result of which will be disastrous for the continued existence of the Jewish State of Israel. The immense security concessions Obama plans for Israel, to enemies who have no interest in giving up their plans to destroy Israel, will leave Israel with nothing but a loss of its physical safety and military security. He appears willing to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. He is even pressuring Israel not to attempt, as a last resort, to protect itself by destroying those nuclear weapons programs. This is extraordinarily frightening, since the alternative is a second Holocaust.
Jews should always have been aware that "it can happen here", and recognize that "Never Again" means nothing unless the Jewish State of Israel is protected against its enemies. This editorial mocks the analogy to 1938, but the similarities are real. There may be disagreements among Jews about the appropriate tactics necessary to confront this danger, but there should be no disagreement as to the need to confront the danger, before it is too late.
As American Jews begin to rally to Israel's support, we will see - as here - the extreme left-wing fringe attack them. American Jews will see clearly who stand with them and who are their enemies. It is time for American Jews to stand up. As Isi Liebler writes:
....
"They must stand up and be counted. Jewish activists should make Obama understand that if he continues to appease Arabs by distancing the US from Israel and reneging on prior American commitments, the Jewish community, including many of his most devoted followers, will conclude that he betrayed them."
( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1248277904833&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )
....
It is time for all American Jews to stand up for Israel, and "push-back".
Was the following sentence written by a friend of Israel?:
"Israelis and their friends got spoiled by the last president’s reckless unilateralism and contempt for world opinion."
"Obama has embarked on the most anti-Israel policy of any American president in history, engaging in a strategy of outlandish attacks, and attempts to intimidate and "divide and conquer" by trying to drive a wedge between American Jews and the Jewish State of Israel."
Bit extreme don't you think, Frank? I think you can argue that both Carter and Bush the First, were probably less pro-Israel than president Obama. I recall Nixon threatening to withhold weapons from Israel just prior to the start of the Yom Kippur War. Not very supportive, that. Can it also be argued that although Bush the Second was very pro-Israel in words, the Iraq War led to the empowerment of Israel's worst enemy - Iran. I sat in a bomb shelter in Tel Aviv during the start of the Gulf War and so have no love lost for Saddam. However, he was the natural buffer to Iran. In this case, words were less important than actions.
I would also argue that there is little evidence, other than the Egypt speech, to support your thesis. I didn't agree with what Obama said at that event myself, but it didn't exactly make him anti-Israel, only anti-settlement. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have held the same views on the West Bank. The man has been president for six months and the sky has not fallen over Hebron. Let's see where he goes first before we get too worked up. Food for Thought. Shabbat Shalom.
I think a majority of American Jews - and a strong majority, at that - support Obama because he stands for social democracy. American Jews are more concerned with bettering their own country than with reactively defending the State of Israel.
Interestingly, it has been suggested that there may be other US presidents who were more anti-Israel than Obama. Although there have been presidents who were "bad for Israel", Obama appears to be by far the worse.
It is hard to argue that Carter - who after leaving office showed himself to be a virulent aggressive anti-Semite who has "fallen in love" with the so-called "palestinians" and has written anti-Israel screeds - was in any manner "pro-Israel". However, his policies (aside from trying to prevent the Egypt-Israel peace treaty) were nowhere near as bad as Obama's. However, it is true that he is very much on Obama's side when it comes to demonizing Israel, using the "settlement" attack, and his attempts to prevent Israel from protecting itself against a nuclear Iran.
George H.W. Bush was indeed no friend of Israel, seeking a show-down with Israel by using an economic sanction to attempt to deny Israel's right to build outside the "Auschwitz" 1967 border with Jordan. He utilized not-so-latent anti-Semitism to portray himself as a victim of pro-Israel activists. In using that scurrilous tactic, he is a precursor to Obama's expanded strategy of direct attacks and attempts to intimidate and silence Jewish groups supportive of Israel. However, Obama has quickly gone much further in attacking Israel and attempting to marginalize and intimidate Jews than H.W. ever did.
(H.W.'s son, George Bush, was a good friend to Israel, but certainly not consistently so, particularly toward the end of his administration, when the traditionally anti-Israel State Department, through Condoleeza Rice, began to wield power, and Israel was dissuaded from taking out Iran's nukes. However, the argument that he damaged Israel by attacking Iraq, thus strengthening Iran, misses the point: legitimate decisions sometimes have unintended consequences, and to attack Iraq should have then promptly included military strikes on Iran's nuclear program.)
Obama's concerted attacks on Israel are, however, unprecedented: He began with outrageous pandering to muslims and arabs and attempts to marginalize American Jews, first in his inaugural address (America is a nation of Christians and Muslims), followed by his Cairo speech in which he adopted the arab "narrative" that Israel was only created because of the Holocaust. He equated Jewish suffering with the self-imposed condition of the "palestinians" (likening them to American Negroes!). He dishonestly blamed Israel's "settlements" (in which he obscenely including Jerusalem) as the reason for the lack of peace. He demanded nothing of the terrorist "palestinians", who are the only obstacle to peace. He again absurdly argued that America is States one of "the largest Muslim countries" - he claimed 7 million muslims (the most reliable estimate being 1.8 million).
Then Obama began his attacks in earnest: He very publicly demanded a complete population freeze even within the boundaries of "settlements" which had been clearly agreed to by previous administrations (it was acknowledged by Presidents Clinton and Bush that Israel cannot return to the fragile armistice lines of 1967). He falsely denied those acknowledged agreements. He and Clinton have actually demanded that no children be born, no marriages take place, and that no additional Jewish persons live within those Israeli communities, including Jewish properties in Jerusalem. He implied that economic sanctions would follow. He has pressed the "Saudi plan", which would involve stripping Israel of its security it won in 1967, and have it commit suicide by acceding to a preposterous arab "right of return".
With the help of his "Jewish" anti-Israel advisors, he enlisted the assistance of virulent fringe "Jewish" anti-Israel extremists like J Street, in his attempt to fracture and intimidate American Jewish supporters of Israel, while attempting to marginalize courageous groups who he thought could not be intimidated, like the Zionist Organization of America. He employs the strategy of "divide and conquer". By using the ruse of attacking Israel on "settlements", he has attempted to bring down or at least neuter Israel's coalition government lead by Netanyahu. (He failed as Israelis recognized his enmity.) Likewise, He has attempted to fracture American Jews' support for Israel and create a wedge between American Jews and Israel. (And we haven't even begun to discuss the major issue of Iran.)
Iran's nuclear weapons program is the most dangerous issue to face Jews since the Holocaust. Obama lied to Jewish voters when he misrepresented that a nuclear Iran would be a "game changer" and that military action would be used - "remain on the table" - if diplomacy did not work. Taking out Iran's nukes is something the US military can handily accomplish, with minimal military casualties. It is now clear that (as warned by George Bush) Obama is an appeaser, who is not only intent on not militarily destroying Iran's nukes, but intends to intimidate Israel into not attempting to militarily prevent a second Holocaust.
Obama has cynically tried to coerce Israel into making military concessions to the palestinians based on the fiction that it would make dealing with Iran easier, and by threatening to withhold action on Iran's nukes if Israel does not obey his dictates. On his behalf, Clinton has made clear that Iran will not be prevented from getting its nukes, when she promises Israel and the Sunni arabs the protection of the US's "nuclear umbrella". Through his other emissaries, Obama's has threatened Israel not to attempt to take out Iran's nukes, the suggestion being that the US will even act to prevent Israel from protecting itself.
On every issue: The use of its own land, defending itself from Iran's Nazis, attempting to force phoney "peace treaties" which damage Israel's security, attempting to intimidate, fracture, and use anti-Semitic Jews to counter Israel's American Jewish supporters, betraying America's traditional alliance with and support of Israel while catering to muslims, Obama has proven himself to be the most anti-Israel president in history. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment is on the rise in America - and since the change has been so rapid - Obama is the obvious reason.
We are watching a slow-motion train wreck. American Jews did not vote for this. They were betrayed. They need to stand up for Israel.
....
Postscript: An article has just been published in the Wall Street Journal that addresses much of what is described above concerning Obama's assaults on Israel: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320532174317294.html
Frank,
I would take issue with such a sweeping statement regarding American Jews on the left. I for example, voted for president Obama because he represented my political beliefs as an American. I thought Bush/Cheney were terrible from a domestic standpoint and I believed the Iraq War a mistake. Again, see my previous comments regarding a stronger Iran as a result.
I take great issue with those in say the Republican Jewish Coalition, who believe they are somehow more supportive of Israel than myself. I made aliyah, volunteered for the army, learned Hebrew, lived on a religious kibbutz, worked for JNF, spent numerous nights in a bomb shelter in Tel Aviv during the Gulf War.... Who are these folks to tell me that I'm somehow less of a supporter of Israel because I'm on the left? I would also remind these people that the State of Israel was rebuilt by the left, Socialists in fact.
The big problem here is not the desire of Israel for peace. The problem is that the Arabs do not. The stated red lines for Arabs Return of portions of Jerusalem, right of return, etc, are all known non starters. For better or worse, President Bush came to this realization within 6 months of taking office and acted accordingly. For that we should be grateful.
Hopefully President Obama will figure this out. They say he is a smart man. He will also need to figure out how to deal with a suicidal messianic regieme in Iran.
yukon or northwestern territories each had a few thousand of hunters and fishers. yet neither US nor canada, having professed their undying love for jewishness and 'jews' as suprahuman, never offered them even a few square kms of either region.
instead, the loving christians pushed the nonshemites into a shemitic land. but 'zionists' also wld not go anywhere but into the shemitic lands because that's what also christo-talmudniks solely wanted. and 'ionist' knew they wld be helped to establish a state in palestine because christo-talmoodishness wld help them militarily and financially.
now that 'jews' jumped from frying pan to fire, they know what horrible fate awaits them in the lands of late shem. can any sane person live in one land with ultraorthodox, orthodox, reform, mosheism, judaism, modern, hassidic, lubavitch, haredi, talmudniks, et al? i wldn't wish such a country even for nazis let alone vielen slavo-germannischen-afro-asiatischen voelken. and add to that, muezzin hollering in the mornings to an enemy god to destroy nonshemites and i think any sane person wld go mad in a day. does anybody still want to live in an artificial land with artificial peoples and supported artificially by world plutos until their profits begin to wane because of boycott of their products?
I will repeat this again before I'm banned like i was last week.All Jews are Semites unless they are recent converts look up the tests from around the world on Jewish DNA.A Syrian Jew has a closer paternal DNA with a German Jew then a Gentile German has with a Jewish German Etc.Google it or use Yahoo any search engine will do,'Bozhidar Balkas',I'm sure that's your real name.
Have I missed reports that "the Palestinians are cracking down" on terrorism, or incitement, or doing anything positive?
Obama's plan is to appease a nuclear Iran and prevent Israel from defending itself:
A RECIPE FOR EVEN MORE DELAY ON IRAN
By Anne Bayefsky Aug 5, 2009
US President Barack Obama will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is the stark reality facing Israeli decision-makers, who will be forced to risk the ire of a deeply hostile president if the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb is to be derailed.
No doubt the Obama administration claims to be worried, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates stating on July 16 that an Iranian bomb is "the greatest current threat to global security." But the same administration has no plan to ensure that the threat does not materialize - and is attempting to ensure that Israel doesn't either.
The Iranians have already called Obama's bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: "[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran... They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran... Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them."
The president's stance on Iran, and what it says about his anti-Israel bias, cannot be wished away. On August 3 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the eviction of two Palestinian families illegally living in Jerusalem homes "deeply regrettable," but politely asked Iran for help in locating "the whereabouts of the three missing Americans" - that Iran had taken hostage - "and return[ing] them as quickly as possible." This is an administration more worried about ensuring a Judenrein future Palestinian state (settlements being only the tip of the iceberg) than ensuring the safety of the Jewish state or preventing the dramatic shift in the balance of power that will come with an Iranian nuclear weapon.
With President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sworn into office this week, it is critical that Obama's Iran scheme be in the open. Here are the elements of the "begging us to talk with them" syndrome.
Engagement is the watchword, and it has no expiry date. In May, Obama declared that deadlines would be "artificial," and spoke only of having "a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction." In July the President said "we will take stock of Iran's progress" at the G20 meeting in late September. On July 27, Gates told Jerusalem: "I think the president is certainly anticipating or hoping for some kind of response this fall, perhaps by the time of the UN General Assembly." All of which is a recipe for delay.
The daily barbarism on the streets of Teheran has not shaken Obama off the engagement course. The administration has decided to accept the legitimacy of President Ahmadinejad as the rightful Iranian interlocutor, notwithstanding three new American hostages, the fraudulent election, the show trials under way, the torture of pro-democracy advocates, the detained, the dead and the disappeared. At the end of July, all Clinton had to say was: "We've certainly reached out. We've made it clear that that's what we would be willing to do even now."
The much-vaunted engagement, however, hasn't even started. The excuses abound. In Clinton's words in Bangkok at the end of July: "The door is open to what we would like to see as a one-on-one engagement with Iran. But they are so preoccupied right now. The internal debates going on within Iran have made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to pursue any diplomatic engagement... I don't think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now."
Or as Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley put it a day later: "We'll have to wait and see where Iran is... Obviously, right now, the government has its hands full."
In effect, the administration is giving Iran a time-out for brutality.
In the meantime, there is no American push for tough immediate sanctions in response to Iran's massive violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and human rights. On the contrary, Obama declared in July: "This notion that we were trying to get sanctions... is not accurate."
Gates confirmed no sanctions yet on July 27: "If the engagement process is not successful, the United States is prepared to press for significant additional sanctions." On August 3, Clinton managed only: "In the absence of some positive response from the Iranian government, the international community will consult about next steps, and certainly next steps can include certain sanctions."
If and when the administration reverses course on sanctions, its first stop will be the UN. It will start by begging the Security Council for another resolution with "significant" sanctions. Except that nobody believes the Security Council will deliver. More than six years ago the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran was violating the NPT. And here we are on the brink of disaster five trivial resolutions later.
Russia and China, with major and growing investments in Iran, have already made their objections clear. In July, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressly labeled more sanctions "counterproductive." After wasting more time at the UN over resolution number six, Americans may claim they can get the job done outside the UN in concert with the E-3 - France, the United Kingdom and Germany. But Germany has $5.6 billion in trade annually with Iran, making it the country's largest European trading partner and the third largest worldwide. Not surprisingly, Chancellor Angela Merkel said in July that she prefers "keeping open the possibility of talks on Iran's nuclear program."
Or as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband explained Britain's hurry-up-and-wait foreign policy on July 29: "On the important nuclear question, the ball is in Iran's court... [W]e look forward to that government addressing... the clear package that was put to Iran some 15 or 16 months ago."
By the time the sanctions route finally takes hold in the administration's imagination - and those of its allies - it would be foolhardy to assume that design, implementation and evaluation will proceed at a rate sufficient to beat the nuclear clock.
In short, Obama's Iran policy has two prongs. Set a snail's pace on engagement and sanctions. And send waves of brass-knuckled emissaries to Jerusalem in an effort to take military action off the table.
The only question now is whether Obama's fundamental disrespect for Jewish self-determination will convince Israel not to take the military steps necessary to forestall an Iranian nuclear bomb. If it does, Ahmadinejad's reign of terror will have only just begun.
Israel was offered a everlasting peace with the arabs in 2002, if they would go back to the internationelly agnowledged borders of 67. Israel refused. What more can you wish for? As for Irans nukes, there are no proof for that both the IAEA and 16 differend american intelligenceagencies confirm that Iran doesnt have any plans to get nukes. Even if they would want nukes why is Israel allowed to have some and Iran not? Which state has started most wars in the mid east? Israel is under a big threat and it wont win this war uless it realises that its power will decline some day, so its better to seek peace and understanding with its arab neighbors.
If Jews need to see the absurd lies we have to contend with from arabs and virulent Jew-haters, just look at the previous post, which utilizes Joseph Goebbles' "BIG LIE". If these were not life and death issues it would be laughable: "Israel was offered everlasting peace." and, "Iran doesn't have any plans to get nukes." Somehow I think "Baker" may an arab, channeling Ahmadinejad, or perhaps James "Baker". LOL!
American Jews may look to "Jewish" publications for information, and that is worth dealing with, since they risk being mislead by the extremely anti-Israel "Jewish" Forward. The Forward has clearly shown itself to be an extremist organization, engaged in a far-left "progressive" propaganda war against Israel, and attempting to damage and splinter American Jews' support for the Jewish State of Israel. This "story" is but one more example.
Now, here's an important story that the Forward will not report: American "Democratic" Jews - who voted for Obama - disagree with how he is treating Israel! And, further, despite the Forward's and J Street's wishful claims, American Jewish leaders are "pushing-back" - hard - against Obama (and his anti-Israel strategists, Emanuel and Axelrod):
A column today, in the WSJ, penned by the President of the World Jewish Congress:
..... MIDEAST PEACE STARTS WITH RESPECT
Note to Obama: The Palestinians still haven’t recognized the Jewish state.
By Ronald S. Lauder
More than one American president has tried to bring peace to the Middle East, and more than one has failed. So as the Obama administration outlines its own prospectus for a comprehensive settlement to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, it would do well to take note of some potential pitfalls.
Rule No. 1: Respect the sovereignty of democratic allies. When free people in a democracy express their preferences, the United States should respect their opinions. The current administration should not try to impose ideas on allies like Israel.
The administration would also do well to take heed of the Palestinian Authority’s continued refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is not a trivial matter. A long-term settlement can only be forged on the basis of mutual recognition and respect. To deny the essence of the Zionist project—to rebuild the Jewish people’s ancient homeland—is to call into question the seriousness of one’s commitment to peace.
It is a sad statement of the Palestinians’ approach to peace-making that denial of the Jewish homeland is not simply contained in the openly anti-Semitic leadership of Hamas. It is a widespread belief across the spectrum of Palestinian opinion. This reality must be confronted.
Today’s leadership must never forget that the core historic reason for the conflict is the Arab world’s longstanding rejection of Israel’s existence. The two-state solution was accepted by Israel’s pre-state leadership led by David Ben-Gurion in 1947 when it agreed to the partition plan contained in United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arabs flatly rejected it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows all too well, President Bill Clinton’s peace plans in 2000 foundered due to Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state, even as Israel, once again, accepted their right to statehood.
More recent experience in Europe also offers lessons about the dangers of negotiating with terrorists. Over the past year, officials from Britain, France and the European Union all held talks with officials from the “political wing” of Hezbollah in a bid to get the terrorist group to moderate its behavior. Hezbollah is undoubtedly grateful for the legitimacy that these meetings have conferred, but it is not laying down its arms. Indeed, according to a recent report from the Times of London, the group has now stockpiled 40,000 rockets close to the Israeli border.
To be sure, we must have hope. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are useful models. Nonetheless, the recent rebuffs by Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia of efforts by the Obama administration to promote a more conciliatory attitude to Israel offer a salient reminder that those who started this conflict may not yet be in a mood to end it, whatever their rhetoric to the contrary.
And then there are the settlements. Undoubtedly, this is a complex matter. Yet the administration must beware of overemphasizing it. Compromises between people of goodwill can be made on the settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent states.
That’s why an unambiguous strategy explaining precisely how Hamas and Hezbollah can be disarmed and how Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons is of central importance to any peace plan.
The administration must also be wary of letting Israel’s opponents use the settlement issue as a convenient excuse for failing to make moves of their own. The settlements matter, but they do not go to the core of this decades-old conflict.
Making peace in the Middle East is an unenviable task. It is also a noble calling. To be successful, it will require patience and fortitude. It will also require an ability to stand above the fray, to see the problems for what they are, and the courage to confront them at their source.
Mr. Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress.
......
The vast majority of American Jews agree with Mr. Lauder.
It has never been said by the Iranina leadership that Israel should be destroyed. What was said is the present government's leadership (Zionism) should be done away with. Let us hear about what the Zonists are doing with their warhsips on innocent Palestinian trying to provide food for their families in international waters. It is called piracy - why isn't been published in our media?
Ah, another Israel-hating "professor" (of ceramics no less)! LOL! Look at the haters - the "anti-Zionists" the Forward draws - fringe characters who announce to Campus-watch.org that they wish to be listed as being "in solidarity" with "academics" it identified as, "apologists for suicide bombings and militant Islam": http://www.campus-watch.org/apologists.php
No that is actual "rage without reason". That is the nature of "anti-Zionism", and all Jew-hatred.
Mr. Frank should be aware that one Professor Avraham Oz, Department of Drama, University of Haifa, Israel is also an "apologist" who signed on to be included in the Campus-watch organization listing